This is where I think I really do identify with Draco and it has often gotten me in trouble.
Bwahahaha, me too. There's a Linda Goodman book I used to love when I was little about some star signs interacting, and how Sagittarians (which I'm not even, so god knows why I do it) always insult people, not because they necessarily mean to be cruel but because they assume everyone sees themselves the same way they do: warts and all. So they say insensitive things and people rebutt furiously and they're all kind of confused: 'Like, what does me being fat, for example, have to do with your lack of maths ability?' With Draco (and as I sometimes can be *slaps own wrist*) you have a more vicious approach where someone is adept at noticing flaws (I do think anyone who constantly criticises others has esteem issues of their own, and whether they admit it or not, probably recognises their own mistakes regularly, though) and will use them, and of course, people with this kind of simple Gryffindorish mindset will be horrified: 'Like, so what if it's true that I'm X or Y? You didn't have to say it!' (Love that part where all the Weasleys are horrified and ashamed of Percy saying something that would be obvious to a blind monkey.) There's this idea that because one finds it easy to understand people and their motivations, that you should care, so there's complete horror at the idea of someone recognising flaws and not softening them. And of course, with the HP books, there's this wild hypocrisy, because Draco (and Snape) is constantly being confronted with 'truths': you're not as good as Harry, your dad deserves whatever he gets, you're pathetic and obsess over petty grudges; and no-one sees any reason to sugar-coat any of this.
But of course, there's a mixture between these two types of insensitivity - so you have Draco making an effort and flubbing it because he's tactless and you have Draco purposely being cruel. What interests me about him, in this case, is the vast difference of opinion the fans and naysayers have: the fans tend to (forgive me for generalising) adore that he states exactly what they're thinking or the truth, whereas the detractors very much seem to have this idea of him as a liar - he exaggerates injuries, he misleads in the Skeeter articles... That actually cracks me up as an example, because it's quite clever: there's lots of insinuations from Skeeter and Pansy and Draco, but from a legal standpoint, I don't think Harry et al would have much of a case ((of course in the JKR-verse the law would no doubt be wildly sympathetic and libel legislation much stricter! ;)) and there's much half-truths: Harry makes friends with dangerous creatures, everyone's scared in Hagrid's lessons, "most people thought Potter was behind (the CoS attacks)", said attacks were hushed up, Hermione's "brainy" enough to make a love potion... But because Skeeter and her interviewees are very carefully skewing the information their way to impact negatively, people are horrified and dismiss it all as 'lies'. When of course, Harry et al's information is equally one-sided and biased, it's just that we see it as fair and truthful because he's our POV character. (This reminds me of the snarkery, and how many discrepancies there are between Harry's memories and interpretations of certain events and how they appear in canon, sometimes instantly - he immediately recalls Seamus 'attack'ing him; he forgets Ginny's possession; he recalls how cowardly Malfoy was in the forest and conveniently omits his own terror; he wavers from being convinced that his life is only intact because of luck and the help of his friends, and viewing himself as the lone hero in every situation; he describes Buckbeak as 'cute'...)
no subject
It's long because it's about ME ME ME.
Clearly you are Real!Life!Harry ;)
This is where I think I really do identify with Draco and it has often gotten me in trouble.
Bwahahaha, me too.
There's a Linda Goodman book I used to love when I was little about some star signs interacting, and how Sagittarians (which I'm not even, so god knows why I do it) always insult people, not because they necessarily mean to be cruel but because they assume everyone sees themselves the same way they do: warts and all.
So they say insensitive things and people rebutt furiously and they're all kind of confused: 'Like, what does me being fat, for example, have to do with your lack of maths ability?'
With Draco (and as I sometimes can be *slaps own wrist*) you have a more vicious approach where someone is adept at noticing flaws (I do think anyone who constantly criticises others has esteem issues of their own, and whether they admit it or not, probably recognises their own mistakes regularly, though) and will use them, and of course, people with this kind of simple Gryffindorish mindset will be horrified: 'Like, so what if it's true that I'm X or Y? You didn't have to say it!'
(Love that part where all the Weasleys are horrified and ashamed of Percy saying something that would be obvious to a blind monkey.)
There's this idea that because one finds it easy to understand people and their motivations, that you should care, so there's complete horror at the idea of someone recognising flaws and not softening them.
And of course, with the HP books, there's this wild hypocrisy, because Draco (and Snape) is constantly being confronted with 'truths': you're not as good as Harry, your dad deserves whatever he gets, you're pathetic and obsess over petty grudges; and no-one sees any reason to sugar-coat any of this.
But of course, there's a mixture between these two types of insensitivity - so you have Draco making an effort and flubbing it because he's tactless and you have Draco purposely being cruel.
What interests me about him, in this case, is the vast difference of opinion the fans and naysayers have: the fans tend to (forgive me for generalising) adore that he states exactly what they're thinking or the truth, whereas the detractors very much seem to have this idea of him as a liar - he exaggerates injuries, he misleads in the Skeeter articles...
That actually cracks me up as an example, because it's quite clever: there's lots of insinuations from Skeeter and Pansy and Draco, but from a legal standpoint, I don't think Harry et al would have much of a case ((of course in the JKR-verse the law would no doubt be wildly sympathetic and libel legislation much stricter! ;)) and there's much half-truths: Harry makes friends with dangerous creatures, everyone's scared in Hagrid's lessons, "most people thought Potter was behind (the CoS attacks)", said attacks were hushed up, Hermione's "brainy" enough to make a love potion...
But because Skeeter and her interviewees are very carefully skewing the information their way to impact negatively, people are horrified and dismiss it all as 'lies'. When of course, Harry et al's information is equally one-sided and biased, it's just that we see it as fair and truthful because he's our POV character.
(This reminds me of the snarkery, and how many discrepancies there are between Harry's memories and interpretations of certain events and how they appear in canon, sometimes instantly - he immediately recalls Seamus 'attack'ing him; he forgets Ginny's possession; he recalls how cowardly Malfoy was in the forest and conveniently omits his own terror; he wavers from being convinced that his life is only intact because of luck and the help of his friends, and viewing himself as the lone hero in every situation; he describes Buckbeak as 'cute'...)